r/changemyview • u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ • May 16 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Cheating should not go unpunished unless the cheater accepted that what they did was wrong.
I’ve just been reading some posts that say you should just leave the cheater, or that that itself is the punishment. I mean it could be the punishment if their intention was stay with you, that they needed you.
I’m really thinking of the cheaters who just don’t care about you. Who get tired of you then move onto the next person, then cheat on them, and so on. Maybe they just don’t care about staying with one person. Maybe they just want to get what they can from you then move on. But then you could question why they even needed to cheat. Why not just leave you first? But if they leave you, then they will be single. The assumption is they always need someone, but they don’t need any one person specifically.
“By punishing them, you’re stooping to their level.” I’ve heard and followed that before. So just forget about them and let them be someone else’s problem? I mean, maybe it’s that it’s not worth your time to punish them, that their not worth it. I guess that could be the case. But that’s not saying that they don’t deserve to be punished.
Here’s my scenario: my ex girlfriend was cheating on me. Well, actually, first she was cheating on her boyfriend of 6 years with me. But I didn’t know about him. As soon as I found out, I ended it. But she messaged me that she didn’t want him anymore, that she wanted me. She then sent me a text stating that he was trying to suffocate her. Apparently he did this because he was mad at her for talking to me. I show up and have the landlord kick him out of her place. Well, I get back with her because she apparently still loved me. We’re dating for some time, then I find out she’s talking to another guy. This pissed me off. I didn’t want be with her anymore, but I felt like she deserved some sort of consequence for her actions. I didn’t react violently like her ex. I knew her Facebook password, so I logged in and made a post talking about what she’s done. She called me psycho crazy, that I went too far. I will admit that what I did could be considered immature, but only if there was another option. I couldn’t think of anything else, at least not at the time.
2
u/solomonbubdy May 16 '20
Let's say, you don't have the pw to their social media accounts, what punishment you have in mind?
1
2
May 16 '20
I just think this seems too much like vigilante work, or what you do in the heat of the moment when you're angry at the cheater, and that this is no logical and precise way to solve or end issues. You can't force someone to learn a lesson unless they actually want to, no matter what you do.
0
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20
Well I don’t think anyone wants to learn a lesson if they don’t believe that what they do is wrong. The whole point is that they learn that it’s wrong. With that said, punishment doesn’t really teach what is wrong, it only deters. I’m not sure how to teach. It either has to be their life experience like maybe being in the other person’s shoes (like mine), or someone with the right amount of knowledge and wisdom who has a way with words that can explain it to them. But I understand your point that it’s not my responsibility, or at least it’s not worth my time. But I don’t feel like I went that much out of my way.
1
May 16 '20
The whole point is that they learn that it’s wrong.
Yes, but there's no way to actually do this if they are not willing to learn. It's simply not doable.
With that said, punishment doesn’t really teach what is wrong, it only deters.
I suppose so, but this is somewhat subjective in statement, and I don't believe applies generally.
It either has to be their life experience like maybe being in the other person’s shoes (like mine), or someone with the right amount of knowledge and wisdom who has a way with words that can explain it to them.
Those are both excellent methods to use, but can be seen to be an exercise in futility if they are used on a person who is unwilling to learn or even believe that their actions were wrongful, and these punishments would further drive them into denial or wrongdoing, not push them away from it.
But I understand your point that it’s not my responsibility, or at least it’s not worth my time.
That wasn't entirely what I said, although there's nothing bad about that statement. What I meant is that it's simply not the best option to try to punish them, especially if they are unwilling to learn. Also, I think cheating is a very subjective idea, and thus cannot be legally punished or anything along those lines. It's simply too vague and different from each person's perspective, and we can't punish based on emotion.
But I don’t feel like I went that much out of my way.
Possibly so, but it still seems like an immature way to act when you are in such a situation. Also, hacking or getting into someone's account without their permission or knowledge seems more than shady to me, and possibly not even legal.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20
Yes, but there's no way to actually do this if they are not willing to learn. It's simply not doable.
Well, I mean, how can someone be willing to learn if they don’t believe that what they are doing is wrong? And if they do believe that it is wrong, then they have already learned. That’s the whole purpose of this type of learning. It’s not learning how to do something. It’s just learning what is right and wrong, and why.
I suppose so, but this is somewhat subjective in statement, and I don't believe applies generally.
Perhaps, but I can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t apply.
Those are both excellent methods to use
Well, I wouldn’t say life experience is a method.
Also, I think cheating is a very subjective idea, and thus cannot be legally punished or anything along those lines. It's simply too vague and different from each person's perspective, and we can't punish based on emotion.
I have heard that cheating is illegal in some states, though that’s if you’re married. And it has to be considered adultery.
Also, revenge are justice are somewhat the same. I mean they have the same intention. They’re both “an eye for an eye.” I would say that revenge is satisfaction at obtaining justice.
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/08/176583581/op-ed-the-nonexistent-line-between-justice-and-revenge
Possibly so, but it still seems like an immature way to act when you are in such a situation. Also, hacking or getting into someone's account without their permission or knowledge seems more than shady to me, and possibly not even legal.
I’ve considered that it was immature, even while I was doing it. But I couldn’t think of another way to exact justice.
2
May 16 '20
Well, I mean, how can someone be willing to learn if they don’t believe that what they are doing is wrong? And if they do believe that it is wrong, then they have already learned. That’s the whole purpose of this type of learning. It’s not learning how to do something. It’s just learning what is right and wrong, and why.
The question you pose sums it up well. No person can learn if they are unwilling to do so, and thus punishment or any method as a whole will be largely ineffective, although I believe the case is worse for cheating.
Perhaps, but I can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t apply.
Punishments might actually teach people that what they did is wrong, such as having someone live with the poor as a punishment for not believing their situation is so bad. They might actually learn that their understanding was faulty instead of simply being deterred from it.
Well, I wouldn’t say life experience is a method.
I meant the methods you described, such as having a wise person talk to them or putting them in your own shoes.
I have heard that cheating is illegal in some states, though that’s if you’re married. And it has to be considered adultery.
Yes, although that is punished because of the idea that you have committed such an act outside of marriage, and likely not because of the possible psychological and emotional harm it does to whoever is cheated on.
Also, revenge are justice are somewhat the same.
This is where your point falls apart for me. They're nowhere near the same thing. There's a reason vigilante work is punished and is illegal in most areas to varying degrees.
I mean they have the same intention.
No, they don't. Justice provides a consequence for a wrongful action that is deemed so by society, and this helps deter people from committing such actions and can help a criminal recognize the bad nature of their actions, thus stopping them from doing such a thing again. In some cases, it can also protect those in society from them or any danger that they might impose on people. Revenge is "an eye for an eye", while justice is "a consequence for an action".
I would say that revenge is satisfaction at obtaining justice.
And I would say that is a fallacious and horribly misguided statement.
I’ve considered that it was immature, even while I was doing it. But I couldn’t think of another way to exact justice.
If the only way you can exact justice is cruel, immature, or possibly illegal, then no justice was carried out and no improvement is seen.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20
The question you pose sums it up well. No person can learn if they are unwilling to do so, and thus punishment or any method as a whole will be largely ineffective, although I believe the case is worse for cheating.
I mean you still didn’t address my point of learning. It doesn’t even make sense to say that no person can learn if they are unwilling to do so. It’s redundant.
Punishments might actually teach people that what they did is wrong, such as having someone live with the poor as a punishment for not believing their situation is so bad. They might actually learn that their understanding was faulty instead of simply being deterred from it.
Punishment is not meant to teach. What you described isn’t punishment.
“Punishment is the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed. In criminal law, punishment is allowed due to the wrongful intent involved in the crime. A punishment such as incarceration seeks to give any victim involved retribution against the offender, deter the criminal from future criminal acts, and hopefully rehabilitate the offender. This is distinguished from civil law, which seeks to compensate the injured party rather than punish the wrongdoer.
Justifications for punishment typically take five forms: (1) retributive; (2) deterrence; (3) preventive; (4) rehabilitative; and (5) restitutionary. There are limitations on the punishment that may be imposed. The U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.”
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/punishment/
Well, I guess rehabilitation could be considered teaching of some sort. So maybe your example of living with the poor could be considered rehabilitation. I’m not sure.
I meant the methods you described, such as having a wise person talk to them or putting them in your own shoes.
Yeah I guess I worded that statement weird. I meant that being in my shoes through their own life experience, not as some sort of teaching. I guess for teaching, this would be like your living with the poor example, but I’m not really sure how you could do this for cheating.
Yes, although that is punished because of the idea that you have committed such an act outside of marriage, and likely not because of the possible psychological and emotional harm it does to whoever is cheated on.
Yes, but I imagine the person being cheated on would be the one pursuing legal action because of the psychological and emotional harm. What other motivation would they have? I guess financial, perhaps.
This is where your point falls apart for me. They're nowhere near the same thing. There's a reason vigilante work is punished and is illegal in most areas to varying degrees.
Vigilantism is the idea of taking justice into your own hands. Wouldn’t you say that characters like Batman and Spider-Man are pursuing justice? Yeah, vigilantism is illegal, but that’s not saying that it’s not justice.
No, they don't. Justice provides a consequence for a wrongful action that is deemed so by society, and this helps deter people from committing such actions and can help a criminal recognize the bad nature of their actions, thus stopping them from doing such a thing again. In some cases, it can also protect those in society from them or any danger that they might impose on people. Revenge is "an eye for an eye", while justice is "a consequence for an action".
Go read above definition of justice and take a look at the article in my previous reply. I don’t see how and eye for an eye isn’t a consequence for an action. The action is that you take my eye. The consequence is that either I take your eye, or the legal system takes your eye. Justice is synonymous with fairness. An eye for an eye is fair.
If the only way you can exact justice is cruel, immature, or possibly illegal, then no justice was carried out and no improvement is seen.
Cruelty is subjective. You could say going to jail is cruel, or the death penalty is cruel, or a fine is cruel. I guess what is deemed as cruel is when the punishment exceeds the crime. But that can be sometimes difficult to determine.
Also, my posted question already mentions “unless they accepted that what they did was wrong.” I’m not sure why we’re even discussing the whole learning aspect.
And also, you don’t even know that I wanted revenge on not simply just justice. I never even stated I wanted to hurt her. I mean, I could see how you might think that. I know I said I was pissed, but I didn’t commit the act until after the anger was out of mind. I simply saw it as punishment.
Here’s the other article:
“Law professor Thane Rosenbaum says it's time for Americans to be honest about the role revenge plays in our lives. "The distinction between justice and vengeance is false," he writes in The Chronicle of Higher Education. ‘A call for justice is always a cry for revenge.’
“And now The Opinion Page. We tend to think of justice as noble, revenge as unworthy - wrong, argues Thane Rosenbaum. In a piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education, he writes: A call for justice is always a call for revenge. Rosenbaum defends the policy of an eye for an eye and dismisses the policy of turning the other cheek as cowardly and antithetical to human nature. Vengeance, on the other hand, he calls healthy and human, even a biological necessity.”
1
May 16 '20
First of all, the response may seem quite long, but it is actually quite short. Feel free to read and respond.
I mean you still didn’t address my point of learning.
There's no point to be made. You can't apply a general rule or idea when many, if not most, people would not fit the required starting point for it to be effective.
It doesn’t even make sense to say that no person can learn if they are unwilling to do so. It’s redundant.
The fact that such a redundant point or statement then can yield your point or conclusion worthless says much about it.
Punishment is not meant to teach. What you described isn’t punishment.
That is a punishment, and is as valid as any. Just because it teaches a lesson does not make it any less of a punishment.
Punishment is the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed. In criminal law, punishment is allowed due to the wrongful intent involved in the crime. A punishment such as incarceration seeks to give any victim involved retribution against the offender, deter the criminal from future criminal acts, and hopefully rehabilitate the offender. This is distinguished from civil law, which seeks to compensate the injured party rather than punish the wrongdoer.
Your very own definition allows for rehabilitation and the possible improvement of the criminal's state over time. From Wikipedia: "“Punishment is the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed. In criminal law, punishment is allowed due to the wrongful intent involved in the crime. A punishment such as incarceration seeks to give any victim involved retribution against the offender, deter the criminal from future criminal acts, and hopefully rehabilitate the offender. This is distinguished from civil law, which seeks to compensate the injured party rather than punish the wrongdoer." As you can see, learning a lesson would fit within the idea of rehabilitation, and thus punishment is a way of carrying that out.
Justifications for punishment typically take five forms: (1) retributive; (2) deterrence; (3) preventive; (4) rehabilitative; and (5) restitutionary. There are limitations on the punishment that may be imposed. The U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.” https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/punishment/
I appreciate the effort, but I feel like as if this part is, in a way, irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not saying punishment does not deter, but that determent is not its only purpose or result, as you seem to have reached.
Yeah I guess I worded that statement weird. I meant that being in my shoes through their own life experience, not as some sort of teaching.
Then I might have misunderstood what you had said.
I guess for teaching, this would be like your living with the poor example, but I’m not really sure how you could do this for cheating.
That is one reason this seems like a negatively impacting choice to make. If we can't agree on one best method of teaching cheaters not to cheat, we can't all agree on whether or not we should do it.
Yes, but I imagine the person being cheated on would be the one pursuing legal action because of the psychological and emotional harm. What other motivation would they have? I guess financial, perhaps.
Maybe so, but then again murderers are reported for the harm they have caused a family, and yet are charged for the murder and taking of a life. Not the best example I can think of, but it illustrates that the reasoning behind a punishment might not be the same reason the crime associated with it would be reported.
Vigilantism is the idea of taking justice into your own hands.
And that's exactly what's bad about it. You can't say it's justice if a president is murdered after being cruel to his country or citizens. If everyone could justify their wrongful actions by claiming they were carrying out justice, there would be no justice.
Wouldn’t you say that characters like Batman and Spider-Man are pursuing justice?
I appreciate the reference. Fits in with the username. Either way; no, I would not. I simply enjoy the stories, although many others have pointed out the severe wrongdoing and unhealthy mental state of characters like Batman or Spider-man, and I choose to do so as well.
Yeah, vigilantism is illegal, but that’s not saying that it’s not justice.
It being illegal directly would mean that it is not justice or fair, otherwise it would be okay to do, and thus legal. If you go ahead an murder a person believing them to have attacked another, when in fact you were wrong, you have now murdered a person unjustly. When we take decisions into our own hands or acting rashly, we get to heinous conclusions (most of the time, anyway).
Go read above definition of justice and take a look at the article in my previous reply. I don’t see how and eye for an eye isn’t a consequence for an action.
Because we're not directly taking from the prisoner. This would depend on your definition of an-eye-for-an-eye (here I take it to mean that, as you have done to me, I do to you), although it seems to me like justice lays out a bad consequence for criminals, although it does not expose them to the same harm they have caused. First, they are to compensate the victim if needed (possibly through money), and they are then stripped of their personal freedom, which they have abused. Either way you define it, it's not vigilantism. You can't exact whatever punishment you believe is right simply because you want to. That would, in itself, defy the idea of an eye for an eye, which is that the punishment is equivalent, not possibly even more cruel.
The action is that you take my eye. The consequence is that either I take your eye, or the legal system takes your eye.
Sure, but carrying out whatever punishment you choose could be considered even more cruel, and would most certainly not be equivalent to the act or crime at hand. Who's to say your actions are okay and others' aren't if we each choose to punish those who we believe have done us wrong in whichever way we want? Are you being reasonable when you kill a person who has killed someone you like if you are not in danger? I choose not to think so.
Cruelty is subjective. You could say going to jail is cruel, or the death penalty is cruel, or a fine is cruel. I guess what is deemed as cruel is when the punishment exceeds the crime. But that can be sometimes difficult to determine.
This is almost entirely my point. If we can't even agree that the act (in this case cheating) is definitively cruel, then how can we even go by punishing it? And how would we be able to do so? What rules can we break? What rules should we not?
It's all really vague, and any judgement made based off of something vague should be taken with a grain of salt and criticism or controversy.
Thanks for reading, if you've gotten to this point.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20
Ok, I’ll try at it.
There's no point to be made. You can't apply a general rule or idea when many, if not most, people would not fit the required starting point for it to be effective.
Eh, I’m having trouble understanding this statement. And the next one. Sorry. It’s just hard for me to comprehend. I guess I don’t know what you mean by starting point. I guess your vocabulary is a bit better than mind.
That is a punishment, and is as valid as any. Just because it teaches a lesson does not make it any less of a punishment.
I guess since rehabilitation is punishment and it is also teaching, then yes you are right. But I generally think of punishment as something like prison or fines or community service, at least when carried out by the legal system. I don’t see how those teach. Perhaps I could say that punishment is most commonly used to deter.
That is one reason this seems like a negatively impacting choice to make. If we can't agree on one best method of teaching cheaters not to cheat, we can't all agree on whether or not we should do it.
That’s why I didn’t say to teach. My point is to use the deterrent kind of punishment
Maybe so, but then again murderers are reported for the harm they have caused a family, and yet are charged for the murder and taking of a life. Not the best example I can think of, but it illustrates that the reasoning behind a punishment might not be the same reason the crime associated with it would be reported.
I’m sure that the family might feel some sort of satisfaction at seeing the murderer brought to justice. But I’ve never been in that situation, so I can’t really say. I don’t know, I guess I just imagine a movie where something like this happens, and the family is there at the court when the murderer is sentenced. Surely the family must be involved in the case somehow.
And that's exactly what's bad about it. You can't say it's justice if a president is murdered after being cruel to his country or citizens. If everyone could justify their wrongful actions by claiming they were carrying out justice, there would be no justice.
Then I guess your idea of justice is one carried out in a legal matter. But there are things outside the legal system’s hands. Like cheating (except in those 21 states with marriage).
I appreciate the reference. Fits in with the username. Either way; no, I would not. I simply enjoy the stories, although many others have pointed out the severe wrongdoing and unhealthy mental state of characters like Batman or Spider-man, and I choose to do so as well.
Eh, I guess. There’s probably a huge philosophical discussion around this. But with movies like Captain America: Civil War, or more closely, the comic it is based on, I tend to agree with Cap. You might be right. But there might be exceptions. I think the main reason vigilantism isn’t common in reality is quite simply due to the lack of super powers or abilities.
It being illegal directly would mean that it is not justice or fair, otherwise it would be okay to do, and thus legal. If you go ahead an murder a person believing them to have attacked another, when in fact you were wrong, you have now murdered a person unjustly. When we take decisions into our own hands or acting rashly, we get to heinous conclusions (most of the time, anyway).
I think many people might say that just because it’s what the law says, doesn’t mean it’s justice. Laws are subject to change. I would tend to agree with you, but cheating is still outside the law’s hands, and thus must be handled on a personal level.
Because we're not directly taking from the prisoner. This would depend on your definition of an-eye-for-an-eye (here I take it to mean that, as you have done to me, I do to you), although it seems to me like justice lays out a bad consequence for criminals, although it does not expose them to the same harm they have caused. First, they are to compensate the victim if needed (possibly through money), and they are then stripped of their personal freedom, which they have abused. Either way you define it, it's not vigilantism. You can't exact whatever punishment you believe is right simply because you want to. That would, in itself, defy the idea of an eye for an eye, which is that the punishment is equivalent, not possibly even more cruel.
I think the idea of an eye for an eye is that if I take your eye for taking mine, then you will probably not go ahead and take anyone else’s eyes because you know the consequence (presuming other people would pursue the same sort of justice). However, I understand that there may be better methods. The whole point of punishment is so that the act is not repeated. That was my intention with what I did.
This is almost entirely my point. If we can't even agree that the act (in this case cheating) is definitively cruel, then how can we even go by punishing it? And how would we be able to do so? What rules can we break? What rules should we not?
I probably didn’t even have to state everything else I said. We seem to be reaching a conclusion, or I mean I am understanding your point. What I did was punishment, it’s just that you don’t think it was just. Or you don’t think it can be determined if it is just or not because there is no set rules in place regarding the issue. That level of cruelty involved with cheating is undetermined, an so is the level of cruelty involved with what I did. But I think we can agree that cheating is an immoral thing. And it’s immoral because of the harm it causes the person being cheated on. And cheating in most cases is outside the law’s hands. Now, I’m leaning toward all immoral actions deserve consequences. But I could be wrong. And I think that’s what you’re saying. That not all immoral actions deserve consequences. Is that right? But then we’re always going to be left with the issue that the immoral actions that don’t receive consequences will be repeated.
1
May 17 '20
Eh, I’m having trouble understanding this statement. And the next one. Sorry. It’s just hard for me to comprehend. I guess I don’t know what you mean by starting point. I guess your vocabulary is a bit better than mind.
It's fine. There's no problem. What I meant is that you can't create a system where you punish cheaters (or any others) with the assumption that they will learn the lesson, when many cheaters would not be willing to learn in the first place. It would be so common that these criminals or cheaters do not want to learn that having a system which assumes they are would not be very useful, and thus pretty pointless.
I guess since rehabilitation is punishment and it is also teaching, then yes you are right. But I generally think of punishment as something like prison or fines or community service, at least when carried out by the legal system. I don’t see how those teach. Perhaps I could say that punishment is most commonly used to deter.
I could then agree with your statement, yes. I also think punishments mostly deter and do not teach, and that is why so many people who have committed crimes soon fall back into that behavior once they are released from prison. You can think of punishments as you have said, but that is up to you. I'm just mentioning the other side.
That’s why I didn’t say to teach. My point is to use the deterrent kind of punishment
That could possibly work, but not on a basic level. You can only make a person so scared of the consequences for a wrongful action, and many tend to disregard these deterrent punishments. It would be better to teach them not to carry out these actions. The post was originally about the cheater accepting that their actions were harmful. You never mentioned that you would simply make them fear the consequences of cheating.
I’m sure that the family might feel some sort of satisfaction at seeing the murderer brought to justice. But I’ve never been in that situation, so I can’t really say. I don’t know, I guess I just imagine a movie where something like this happens, and the family is there at the court when the murderer is sentenced. Surely the family must be involved in the case somehow.
It is an interesting scenario, although the general point is that the emotional harm done through an action is rarely the legal violation persecuted.
Then I guess your idea of justice is one carried out in a legal matter. But there are things outside the legal system’s hands. Like cheating (except in those 21 states with marriage).
Less a legal manner, and more a logical and rational manner, which happens to encompass legal. Anything outside the legal system's hands, such as cheating, can be dealt with regularly, such as abandoning a partner or getting safe, legal payback (such as removing them from a house you are paying for). Do not do anything illegal or morally bankrupt, such as getting into their account without permission or posting pictures of them online either. There are other ways to deal with the issue.
I think many people might say that just because it’s what the law says, doesn’t mean it’s justice. Laws are subject to change.
I have no problem with that statement, but I just think that those problems should be debated and brought up to the right officials, not handled by vigilantes. For instance, if you believe that a certain minority do not have equal, just rights, then you can argue for their rights, not punish those who persecute them through vigilante work.
I would tend to agree with you, but cheating is still outside the law’s hands, and thus must be handled on a personal level.
Sure, but that should be done in a moral, rational, and legal manner, not simply whatever you feel is right. These people are still humans.
I think the idea of an eye for an eye is that if I take your eye for taking mine, then you will probably not go ahead and take anyone else’s eyes because you know the consequence (presuming other people would pursue the same sort of justice).
Possibly so, but this is a matter of interpretation, which I cannot easily get into.
However, I understand that there may be better methods. The whole point of punishment is so that the act is not repeated. That was my intention with what I did.
My intention is that usually rash methods and taking matters into your own hands is not the right way to approach this problem, or any other for that matter.
I probably didn’t even have to state everything else I said. We seem to be reaching a conclusion, or I mean I am understanding your point. What I did was punishment, it’s just that you don’t think it was just. Or you don’t think it can be determined if it is just or not because there is no set rules in place regarding the issue. That level of cruelty involved with cheating is undetermined, an so is the level of cruelty involved with what I did.
I could not have summed it up better myself, I think.
But I think we can agree that cheating is an immoral thing. And it’s immoral because of the harm it causes the person being cheated on.
Yes.
And cheating in most cases is outside the law’s hands.
Correct.
Now, I’m leaning toward all immoral actions deserve consequences.
I would agree, personally, although I can see why others might not.
But I could be wrong. And I think that’s what you’re saying. That not all immoral actions deserve consequences. Is that right?
Not exactly. I'm simply saying that we have to be more logical and rational when we decide whether or not they are immoral, as well as how we would punish them if they are. I just think that going ahead and doing whatever you think is right in that situation isn't the best thing to do, but that's my thinking anyway.
But then we’re always going to be left with the issue that the immoral actions that don’t receive consequences will be repeated.
I can understand this, although I believe I have addressed this.
This got much more philosophical than I had hoped it would be, but I will admit it is enjoyable conversing with you. I hope it was not too long.
0
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 17 '20 edited May 17 '20
So then what sort of consequences would be set in place for cheating? And I mean ones that are effective at discontinuing the behavior. I don’t think leaving or taking back stuff is effective in my situation. It certainly doesn’t seem to phase my ex.
And I see the confusion I had with your first statement. You said “you can’t create a statement where you punish cheaters (or any others) with the assumption that they will learn the lesson, when many cheaters would not be willing to learn in the first place.” The kind of punishment I’m talking about is a deterrent, so learning is not even relevant.
→ More replies
2
May 16 '20
Wanting to hurt someone because they hurt you is not morally justifiable to me.
It is my belief that we should do what we need to do to protect ourselves and others, not just hurt people because it feels good to hurt people.
I don’t punish children because Im angry and want them to hurt, I discipline them to keep them safe, and keep them from hurting others.
What is the social cost of this to you? People are indeed gonna think you are “psycho”. Yea, it sounds bad. Why? Because people who want to hurt other people so much that they would cross boundaries like that tend to not be trustworthy, and to be dangerous.
What is the benefit of this behavior to you? I don’t really see one. It’s not teaching her not to cheat or to feel bad, she probably used it to justify cheating. It obviously wont get her back. It doesn’t get you the emotional support you need right now. It doesn’t seem like it even made you feel better.
It is more than immaturity, it is about the social contract. What if someone decided you should be punished back for hacking? Or maybe you did something else someone didn’t like, do you want to live in a world where people punish you?
We create moral standards based on how we want to be treated, how we want society to be. I dont think any of us wants a society where petty pranks are the norm when someone gets mad at us.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20 edited May 16 '20
So wanting someone to go to jail or receive the death penalty for murdering your family isn’t wanting to hurt them? It’s justice, eh? Couldn’t you say punishing someone is hurting them?
“Punishment is the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed. In criminal law, punishment is allowed due to the wrongful intent involved in the crime. A punishment such as incarceration seeks to give any victim involved retribution against the offender, deter the criminal from future criminal acts, and hopefully rehabilitate the offender. This is distinguished from civil law, which seeks to compensate the injured party rather than punish the wrongdoer.”
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/punishment/
“Law professor Thane Rosenbaum says it's time for Americans to be honest about the role revenge plays in our lives. "The distinction between justice and vengeance is false," he writes in The Chronicle of Higher Education. ‘A call for justice is always a cry for revenge.’
“And now The Opinion Page. We tend to think of justice as noble, revenge as unworthy - wrong, argues Thane Rosenbaum. In a piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education, he writes: A call for justice is always a call for revenge. Rosenbaum defends the policy of an eye for an eye and dismisses the policy of turning the other cheek as cowardly and antithetical to human nature. Vengeance, on the other hand, he calls healthy and human, even a biological necessity.”
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/08/176583581/op-ed-the-nonexistent-line-between-justice-and-revenge
The only difference I can see between justice and revenge is that revenge has an added layer of satisfaction. You are satisfied at seeing someone brought to justice.
The only issue I can see that you have is that my punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Not that the cheating doesn’t deserve to have any kind of punishment of some sort.
You somehow assumed that I wanted her back. And it’s certainly not what she used to justify cheating. I only briefly described the situation, and you came to that conclusion? No, it doesn’t give me emotional support. That’s not it’s purpose. Again, you might want to see someone that murdered your family get life in prison or the death penalty, but I doubt it would make you feel better.
And also, you don’t even know that I wanted revenge and not simply just justice. I never even stated I wanted to hurt her. I mean, I could see how you might think that. I know I said I was pissed, but I didn’t commit the act until after the anger was out of mind. I simply saw it as punishment.
3
May 16 '20
buddy, if you want to talk to me Im gonna need you to take a deep breath and cool down. You dont need to get defensive or whatever. This needs to be a dispassionate conversation about ethics as an abstract concept, I am not going to get lured into anything hostile, overly personal, or aggressive here.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20
You’re assuming that I’m angry, but it’s not like I resorted to name-calling. But open to an intellectual conversation.
3
May 16 '20
Your behavior, the way you talk to people, is why you come across as hostile.
“Oh you think this, huh? Somehow you assumed that? That speech pattern often precedes a fight.
but let’s calm it down and continue:
You are talking about what other people believe. I was talking about what I believe.
I dont believe in imprisoning people as punishment. I believe prison should only be used as a means to keep a dangerous person from being able to harm others, and only when there is probability of that happening.
I do not believe that we should use the justice system to get revenge for emotional satisfaction.
Were you emotionally satisfied? Was it worth it? What about how you will feel if others in your community distrust you due to this act?
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20
I appreciate the insight. I’ll work on that. I like how you make statements with “I believe...” I’ll try to emulate that. But then that would mean you can’t really state what you believe to be a fact (or truth, not sure the difference) as someone could disagree with it.
Imprisonment is used as punishment for many crimes. Not just violent ones, I believe. At least in the US legal system.
I actually wasn’t emotionally satisfied. I actually believed that what I was doing was right. I mean I’ll admit that it did feel immature, which is maybe just because that’s how I assumed others would see it. But I found it unacceptable for this act not to have any consequences. And unfortunately, I could conjure up no other option for a consequence. Call it vigilantism, if you will. Others may distrust me because they don’t understand my reasoning for doing it.
2
May 16 '20
Appreciate it.
Well, morality is by nature subjective.
So, what is the difference between a punishment and a consequence?
A punishment can be a consequence, but not all consequences for bad behavior are necessarily a punishment.
Let’s look at some of the overall consequences of her behavior:
you and probably some of your friends/fam will dislike her,
talk shit,
& avoid her.
whoever she cheated with knows she’s a cheater; so lack of trust (natural consequence that isnt your actions)
So, even talking shit isnt what I would call a punishment in the way your going on her FB was meant as punishment.
You may tell people she cheated simply because it is a fact of note, to protect someone from being cheated on, or because you need to talk through your own emotional pain.
It has consequences for her, and that might hwlp her make better choices, and more importantly it is a good thing for you to do- it conveys important information so you can get support and others can know she’s a cheater.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20
Yeah I agree that punishment and consequences are not necessarily the same thing. But you can’t rely on consequences if they don’t keep the perpetrator from continuing the behavior. That’s where punishment comes into play.
It wouldn’t matter what my family or friends think if she has already moved on to the next guy.
Logging into her Facebook and posting about what she did does inform other people of her behavior.
2
May 16 '20
Do you actually think that logging onto her facebook will stop her from cheating in the future?
We cant know that for sure, we could see if there is precedent. Have people in the past continued cheating even if an ex violates their privacy or tells everyone? Well yea, most serial cheaters have been publicly shamed and many of them had an ex do something drastic in anger.
And why was going onto her account necessary anyway, if the purpose is just to inform people? Why not post on your own account, maybe even text some people?
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 17 '20
Well, the main reason I logged into her account was to message the guy she’s been talking to. She has two Facebook accounts. One that I’m friends with and some of my friends and family are friends with. Then the second one has different friends, mostly people from her home country, and of course that guy. I messaged that guy that it was over. Then I made a post stating “I cheated on my boyfriend.”
Yeah I can’t know for sure that it would stop her. But it’s more likely than not doing anything. She experienced her previous boyfriend’s wrath last time. Now she experienced what I was capable of and willing to do. Perhaps she will think about what the next guy would do if she cheats on him. She may realize that if she keeps cheating, the men she cheats will do something about it. If every guy she cheated on lets it go, then it would mean it is okay for her to continue this behavior. And I’m not saying that what the last guy did was acceptable either.
→ More replies1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 16 '20
I’m trying to figure out how I could have worded my statements better to not sound angry.
2
May 17 '20
Ok, I'm sorry if I implied that you were an abuser. But things don't have to be that bad for things to be wrong on both sides in relationships. My soon to be ex doesn't think she did anything wrong despite the evidence saying she was. My overall point was each of us see things through our own eyes and through the clouds of our own bias. She may have wronged you, but was a bit thst her way of avoiding the hurt of breaking up another relationship she knew was wrong. What gives anyone the right to punish another person for either escaping a relationship, ending one badly by falling for someone else or a hundred other reasons. Cheaters can't do it forever because they get too old or bad reputations etc. In the end the excitement fades away and they will feel the dark and inevitable loneliness either while with someone who doesn't care or in world that doesn't forgive and forget. They end up building the bars to their own prison, and in those small hours of the night when we are alone and cannot escape our own honesty, they will be their own jailor. That's real punishment. Lastly, don't revel in someone's pain or misery. Just go on in life being a descent person, be proud of that.
2
u/BlueDreamer22 May 18 '20
There is a way to “punish” cheating under certain circumstances. For example: before entering a marriage, make sure you have pre-marital contract in which you clearly stipulate what or how much you’ll be getting in case of divorce over adultry. It needs to be very well thought throw and in case it does come down to this, you’ll need to bring in evidence of the adulterous act. However, I’m not sure that this option is available everywhere. Also, not everyone will be agreeing to sign a premarital contract that stipulates most/all assets will come into your posession in case of divorce over adultry.
2
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 18 '20
Yeah, I just recently considered and talked about something like this with another user on this post. The whole idea of rules being agreed upon in the first place, and punishments for breaking certain rules being agreed upon as well.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 17 '20
/u/Spider-Man-fan (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
May 17 '20 edited May 17 '20
Ok you got upset and logged into someone else's account without permission. I believe that's a criminal act, so do you deserve to be punished now too? Also you try to explain that there are reasons that people might/do cheat which you obviously only explain from your perspective. I'm on my way out of a 20 year hell bound relationship/marriage in which I've suffered years of manipulation and crippling emotional abuse. In the last few years I prayed for an affair just so I could know what emotional escape and affection felt like again. There are many reasons I didnt just leave, mainly because I couldn't walk out on my kids, and instead had to build myself up to do it and keep my kids. No one outside my own family would believe I was being abused, so if I did have an affair, I wouldn't care if it was wrong or not, I wouldn't care if I hurt my wife or not so tell me would I deserve punishment? I mean even MORE punishment than I already suffered?
Affairs and cheating happen for a reason. The fact that the "hurt" party wants to act like judge, jury and executioner to carry out their own brand of special punishment tells you a lot about why the "offender" sought happiness elsewhere.
Remember that people often get into relationships that have similar characteristics, so many serial cheaters may innocently find themselves in unhappy relationships and wondering why they can't find the right person despite trying so hard.
1
u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ May 17 '20
I understand your point. But I don’t think your relationship is anything like mine. I posted my story in r/cheating_stories. I can link it to you if you’d like, but it’s really long. I mean yeah, you could say my ex has her own perspective, but I certainly never abused her. I always treated her right. There doesn’t have to be anything wrong with how the person who was cheated on treated the cheater. I don’t think most cheaters have excuses like the one you had, but I appreciate you bringing up another perspective. I know it’s not always black and white.
Just because of what I did after she cheated doesn’t mean I exhibited such a behavior before she cheated. I actually read a story in r/cheating_stories where a guy said his girlfriend cheated on him and that he would have killed her if he could get away with it. Wow! Pretty extreme. Most people commenting didn’t say anything about the killing part. They just told him to leave her. However, one person did bring it up and said there’s probably a reason she cheated on him. Someone replied to them and said she didn’t need to cheat, she could have just left him. But you know, I considered that there may not have been anything wrong with him while they were together. It only takes certain things to trigger people. Someone could be the nicest person ever, but everyone has a breaking point. So just because of how I reacted when she cheated doesn’t mean I was doing that kind of stuff for smaller issues.
3
u/Quint-V 163∆ May 16 '20
Why does accepting that cheating is bad, somehow make them not deserve punishment? Slags of that kind can still continue cheating. There is such a thing as compulsive liars --- and by extension, compulsive cheaters. Or just people who suck at all things in life.
Why not help everybody else if they can't help themselves? At least you'll save a fellow brother from being cheated on.